Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Can someone please explain to me how it is that liberals are going to find common ground with all these so-called libertarian tea partiers when they espouse views like this?

QUESTION: How do you feel about abortion? Are you for abortion, against abortion, are you for it? In what instances would you allow for abortion?

BUCK: I am pro-life, and I'll answer the next question. I don't believe in the exceptions of rape or incest. I believe that the only exception, I guess, is life of the mother. And that is only if it's truly life of the mother.

To me, you can't say you're pro-life and say -- if there is, and it's a very rare situation where one life would have to cease for the other life to exist. But in that very rare situation, we may have to take the life of the child to save the life of the mother.

In that rare situation, I am in favor of that exception. But other than that I have no exceptions in my position.

You can't really blame him. As any Blue Dog will tell you, when right wingers are giving you grief the best way to deal with it is to punch hippies and slap around women. But I have to give him credit. He manages to show some real contempt while he's doing it, making it sound as if he finds it downright distasteful that he has to be so politically correct as to say that the useless vessel should be saved before the fetus.

You hear this stuff from teabaggers everywhere, including the Paul Family Circus, and yet I keep hearing that these people are all good libertarians who aren't interested in culture war issues and just want to protect civil liberties and rein in corruption. Can you really be a libertarian but agree that the state has dominion over women's reproductive organs? Apparently so. But let's just say it makes me a wee bit suspicious that these "libertarian tea partiers" will manage to find whatever loopholes they need to justify their right wing impulses.

Update: Oh Good God. Here's Ron Christie, official GOP villager, going full Teabag lunacy on The Ed Show just now when Joan Walsh mentioned that the congress was going to waste time debating the 14th amendment:

Christie: I think it's good for parties on both sides of this issue to have a hearing. Those folks like me who believe that the constitution is very clear that if you're under the jurisdiction of another power that that you're not automatically conferred citizenship. I think we have a good case there, and I think folks like Joan who say, oh my goodness, we should automatically give illegals the right to have citizenship, both sides should have their say...this should not be a political issue, this should not be something where it's Republicans and Democrats

Walsh: I thought you guys cared about the constitution

Christie: Excuse me, I did not insult you. The issue here is that we're American citizens! We should understand what it means to be a citizen of this country.

Yes, the revolutionary teabagging defenders of the constitution are basically saying that the clear meaning of the 14th amendment is not the clear meaning of the 14th amendment. You think they won't be able to fudge anything they want?

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.